We've just watched The Matrix Revolutions at the cinema.
I said when I reviewed the second film that the third film might change my opinion of the second, by making it make sense. Well, the third film made the second look good, but not for the right reasons.
I'd read some bad reviews of the film, and a friend had also told me it was bad. It's probably good to see this film with low expectations, because then it doesn't seem so bad. As a sci-fi action film it had its moments, but it's not worthy of The Matrix name. What's happened? The first film is just great, and the sequels are mediocre (albeit with some great action). The use of CG has become tiring and the Neo-Smith fight in this film was just a cartoon.
So many silly characters were introduced in the sequels and they did nothing. The Frenchman? The Trainman? Sod off!
Trinity and Morphues hardly did anything in this film. And why doesn't Zion have an EMP? And why didn't they power down when they knew the ship would use its EMP? And why did the fighting vehicles offer the humans no shielding whatsoever?? Idiots.
The Warchowskis talk of The Matrix as coming from a comic book they'd imagined. The sequels would have worked better as a comic book, or an animated series at most.
Nice to see Sydney at the end though!
Two and a half stars.
Yesterday we watched Enemy at the Gates on video in the hostel. I'd wanted to see this snipers-in-Stalingrad movie and thought it was pretty good. Funny to see the Russians and Germans with English accents. Better than faux-foreign accents I suppose! Three and a half stars.